opinions on a lens choice

[jimim]

What about the 28-70mm you have now? That's a great range for Disney, although the lack of IS might be an issue in dim lighting, I'd still go with that as your go-to lens. You can just bump the exposure compensation, or shoot in Av around f3.5, shoot RAW, and just correct exposure and highlights in post. I think that lens on a 7D will be perfect! I shot with the 17-55mm f2.8 last year on the 7D, and it produced great low-light captures. Examples with the 17-55mm f2.8 which isn't as good as your 28-70mm below:

I think your 28-70 would kill it in low light. It's better than the 17-55mm f2.8

It is a great range for disney, but I just wasn't able to get a fast enough shutter even at 2.8 and 1250 iso in dark rides to not have any shake. I'm just not the most steady person. i think that's a bad thing too cause i'm only in my 30's! lol

in low light it is deff good but in total darkness in disney or at the parade it isn't enough for me.

am i trying to justify a toy also is in the back of my head. . . lol

jimi

 

[NWDAD]

I don`t know if the 35 is. But the new Sigma 30 1.4 DC has the ability to hook up to your laptop through a USB adapter to set focus points.

Kevin

 

[ronfin]

I don`t know if the 35 is. But the new Sigma 30 1.4 DC has the ability to hook up to your laptop through a USB adapter to set focus points.

Kevin

The lens doesn't hook-up to a computer, the camera does.

 

[traylorc]

Not a great lens for low light. A lot of people complaining about focusing issues. Read HERE

No offense intended....I am not trying to flame you....but let's not forget that's one thread. Yes it's Dpreview...but it's still only one thread. There is 18 responses in that thread, and the guy who had the issue posted his comments 8 months ago. The were a number of people in that same thread who claimed they did not have the same issues as the OP. To be honest, I have the Sigma and have not noticed any of these issues on my d800 or D4 when taking low light shots. I should also mention that Sigma has a USB dock which allows the user to easily update the firmware of the lens.

There is a thread on Photography on the Net (Canon Digital Photography) where there is a 279 page thread where folks are simply raving about this lens. When doing my due diligence I wanted to know what Canon shooters as well as Nikon shooters thought of this lens.

Are there a few complaints about this lens....sure there are. But let's be honest, if you hunt long enough you can find complaints about every lens. But when I see Canon users who routinely purchase Canon's top of the line "L" series glass raving about this third party lens...I take notice. Particularly when those same folks sell their Canon 35mm L glass to finance the Sigma. Additionally I know some folks who sold their Nikon 35mm f/1.4G lenses in order to purchase the Sigma.

 

[PythonFan888]

The lens doesn't hook-up to a computer, the camera does.

NWDAD is correct. You can hook up a few select Sigma lenses to your PC and do fine tuning etc using a USB dock and optimization software.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/sigma-usb-dock

 

[traylorc]

The lens doesn't hook-up to a computer, the camera does.

Actually it's the lens that hooks up to the computer....I have the USB dock.

The dock fits onto the actual lens similar to a lens cap....at this point you are able to attach the lens to your computer, run Sigma Optimization Pro software, and update your lens or adjust the focus.

 

[ronfin]

No offense intended....I am not trying to flame you....but let's not forget that's one thread. Yes it's Dpreview...but it's still only one thread. There is 18 responses in that thread, and the guy who had the issue posted his comments 8 months ago. The were a number of people in that same thread who claimed they did not have the same issues as the OP. To be honest, I have the Sigma and have not noticed any of these issues on my d800 or D4 when taking low light shots. I should also mention that Sigma has a USB dock which allows the user to easily update the firmware of the lens.

There is a thread on Photography on the Net (Canon Digital Photography) where there is a 279 page thread where folks are simply raving about this lens. When doing my due diligence I wanted to know what Canon shooters as well as Nikon shooters thought of this lens.

Are there a few complaints about this lens....sure there are. But let's be honest, if you hunt long enough you can find complaints about every lens. But when I see Canon users who routinely purchase Canon's top of the line "L" series glass raving about this third party lens...I take notice. Particularly when those same folks sell their Canon 35mm L glass to finance the Sigma. Additionally I know some folks who sold their Nikon 35mm f/1.4G lenses in order to purchase the Sigma.

There's enough bad noise surrounding the low-light performance to suggest it's not a great lens for that type of photography. The OP isn't talking about all around shooting. He's being very specific in his needs, and the Sigma 35mm is having a lot of trouble focusing in ambient light. Daylight, people rave about it. Those "few" complaints are all around exactly what I was describing to the OP when I said that I did not recommend that lens. I gave him one link, but can provide a lot more, but that isn't really necessary. The OP is looking for the best over-all lens that'll perform well in low-light, and on rides. I would not use the 35mm for Disney rides, moving in low light, with focusing issues. He can't just fire off a flash for a quick focus in those rides unless he wants to anger everyone around him. I love Sigma lenses. I own two myself. I always use the 50mm 1.4 since it has great bokeh. I just think you missed the gist of what we were discussing, or why I said to stay away from the 35mm.

 

[ronfin]

Actually it's the lens that hooks up to the computer....I have the USB dock.

The dock fits onto the actual lens similar to a lens cap....at this point you are able to attach the lens to your computer, run Sigma Optimization Pro software, and update your lens or adjust the focus.

That's pretty awesome. Just Googled it and saw the set-up. Works for Canon lenses too. Have to see which lenses it covers.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/article/sigma-usb-dock

 

[traylorc]

There's enough bad noise surrounding the low-light performance to suggest it's not a great lens for that type of photography. The OP isn't talking about all around shooting. He's being very specific in his needs, and the Sigma 35mm is having a lot of trouble focusing in ambient light. Daylight, people rave about it. Those "few" complaints are all around exactly what I was describing to the OP when I said that I did not recommend that lens. I gave him one link, but can provide a lot more, but that isn't really necessary. The OP is looking for the best over-all lens that'll perform well in low-light, and on rides. I would not use the 35mm for Disney rides, moving in low light, with focusing issues. He can't just fire off a flash for a quick focus in those rides unless he wants to anger everyone around him. I love Sigma lenses. I own two myself. I always use the 50mm 1.4 since it has great bokeh. I just think you missed the gist of what we were discussing, or why I said to stay away from the 35mm.

I understand what the OP was asking, and I understand the repercussions of trying to take low light shots with a lens that has problems focusing. I have taken a number of dark ride shots myself with everything from 35mm, 14-24mm, 24-70mm, and 50mm. So I get the gist of what the OP was asking.

However, you directed him to one thread with 18 responses posted over 8 months ago and stated he should stay away from the lens. My point is that the OP should be careful about making his decision to purchase the lens based on one eight month old thread. Particularly when there are people on the board who actually own the lens and the USB dock.

 

[ronfin]

I understand what the OP was asking, and I understand the repercussions of trying to take low light shots with a lens that has problems focusing. I have taken a number of dark ride shots myself with everything from 35mm, 14-24mm, 24-70mm, and 50mm. So I get the gist of what the OP was asking.

However, you directed him to one thread with 18 responses posted over 8 months ago and stated he should stay away from the lens. My point is that the OP should be careful about making his decision to purchase the lens based on one eight month old thread. Particularly when there are people on the board who actually own the lens and the USB dock.

Yes, I know I directed him to one thread for a reference, and didn't think it was necessary to post 5+ more to prove a point. (again) I like that lens. It's tack sharp when it gets the focus right, but for the particular type of shooting he's looking to get into I would not, and still would not, go with that lens for that type of shooting at Disney. I'm not trying to make anyone feel salty about owning a Sigma 35mm. It's an amazing lens, and I can easily link sites raving about it too. Your point about the OP being careful about making his decision is more based on the fact that you own this particular lens, and you yourself have not have any issues focusing with it. It's not just bad copies that are having the issue. Some Nikon users were reporting that this lens liked to hunt a lot, and front focus, so yes, I have concern for someone that's looking for a low-light lens heading to Disney when there are better ones available.

 

[traylorc]

Yes, I know I directed him to one thread for a reference, and didn't think it was necessary to post 5+ more to prove a point. (again) I like that lens. It's tack sharp when it gets the focus right, but for the particular type of shooting he's looking to get into I would not, and still would not, go with that lens for that type of shooting at Disney. I'm not trying to make anyone feel salty about owning a Sigma 35mm. It's an amazing lens, and I can easily link sites raving about it too. Your point about the OP being careful about making his decision is more based on the fact that you own this particular lens, and you yourself have not have any issues focusing with it. It's not just bad copies that are having the issue. Some Nikon users were reporting that this lens liked to hunt a lot, and front focus, so yes, I have concern for someone that's looking for a low-light lens heading to Disney when there are better ones available.

If we made purchasing decisions based on negative comments about a lens or any other piece of photography equipment, then nobody would ever buy anything. There are always going to be negative comments. You have seen negative comments on this issue, I have also seen a few negative comments but I have also seen an overwhelming amount of positive comments. And yeah...I actually have the lens and tested it on two different bodies in low light conditions. I can speak from actual experience of owning the lens. I understand that doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist. Perhaps there was an issue when that has been or can be rectified by a firmware update. Perhaps the problem is limited to a certain bodies. My point is the OP should make sure he does his due diligence on current information regarding this lens so he can make an informed purchasing decision.

 

[ronfin]

If we made purchasing decisions based on negative comments about a lens or any other piece of photography equipment, then nobody would ever buy anything. There are always going to be negative comments. You have seen negative comments on this issue, I have also seen a few negative comments but I have also seen an overwhelming amount of positive comments. And yeah...I actually have the lens and tested it on two different bodies in low light conditions. I can speak from actual experience of owning the lens. I understand that doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist. Perhaps there was an issue when that has been or can be rectified by a firmware update. Perhaps the problem is limited to a certain bodies. My point is the OP should make sure he does his due diligence on current information regarding this lens so he can make an informed purchasing decision.

The title of this thread is "Opinions on a lens choice"

You just don't get it. Yes, I have seen negative comments about the lens and it's performance in low light conditions, gave the OP an example of such, and then told him about a few other lenses that are better, hence the whole "opinion on a lens choice" from a Photographer with low light experience at Disney, on Disney rides, with examples of his work, and having worked with many different lenses. The problem I see here is that I might have touched a nerve with you because you took offense that I gave negative criticism for the 35mm based on the Communities I'm a part of, and having used better lenses that I've shown examples within. The OP asked for opinions, and he got a very good one from someone experienced with the very photography he's looking at capturing. I do not need a copy of the 35mm, although I'd love to squeeze it in my bag if I got rid of something else, to know how it performs in low light situations, or that a particular issue is prevalent to this specific topic. Had the OP said he needed opinions on good daylight primes with amazing bokeh, and was looking to shoot portraits, the Sigma 35mm would've been on my list of lenses to look into. The overwhelming good comments I've seen for the 35mm pertain to well lit subjects. It's a tack sharp lens on most bodies, and is an excellent lens for THAT PARTICULAR AREA. Thank you.

 

[nbaresejr]

Tom Bricker reviewed the Sigma 35 1.4. He is the Disney authority around here and the world as far as I am concerned. He didnt report any issues with this lens. I see no issues why this lens would not be perfect for what the OP is looking for.

Shooting at ridiculous ISO is not practical (5dii, 7d, t2i). There is only so much noise reduction can do. Looking at images in web size is 1 thing but past 3200 maybe 6400 on a crop and 10-12k full frame looks to be the limit.

 

[ronfin]

Tom Bricker reviewed the Sigma 35 1.4. He is the Disney authority around here and the world as far as I am concerned. He didnt report any issues with this lens. I see no issues why this lens would not be perfect for what the OP is looking for.

Shooting at ridiculous ISO is not practical (5dii, 7d, t2i). There is only so much noise reduction can do. Looking at images in web size is 1 thing but past 3200 maybe 6400 on a crop and 10-12k full frame looks to be the limit.

That is called an opinion. If you consider him to be YOUR authority on photography [here], that's great. Just because [he] didn't report what many others did concerning low light focusing issues with the 35mm doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I was giving the OP MY OPINION with my experience, and what I had heard concerning the Sigma 35mm front focusing in low light, which is MORE prevalent than with other lenses. Look at some of my exif data and tell me shooting at high ISO is ridiculous. The 7D can handle it. I owned the 7D and know what it can and can't do.

Also, you should look up Jared Polin, and what he says on "noise". There is absolutely NO reason you can't leave a photo with noise. Reducing it too much in post will kill the clarity. I don't get the whole "too noisy" complaint. Shooting over 6400 is NOT impractical. smh

 

[Daisy14'sDH]

That is called an opinion. If you consider him to be YOUR authority on photography [here], that's great. Just because [he] didn't report what many others did concerning low light focusing issues with the 35mm doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I was giving the OP MY OPINION with my experience, and what I had heard concerning the Sigma 35mm front focusing in low light, which is MORE prevalent than with other lenses. Look at some of my exif data and tell me shooting at high ISO is ridiculous. The 7D can handle it. I owned the 7D and know what it can and can't do.

Also, you should look up Jared Polin, and what he says on "noise". There is absolutely NO reason you can't leave a photo with noise. Reducing it too much in post will kill the clarity. I don't get the whole "too noisy" complaint. Shooting over 6400 is NOT impractical. smh

But noise is not grain (edited). Great example is your Spaceship Earth shot.

You've expressed your opinion on your preference to not use the Sigma. Now you seem to be trying to pushing very hard to assert your opinion... let it go. This is a fun space.

 

[ronfin]

I'm not trying to push anything except the fact that I gave an opinion based on experience and knowledge, and shouldn't have to keep defending it. Did you seriously need to chime in with your opinion to tell me to drop it? Soon as people [here] stop trying to use their opinions as fact we can all drop it. How many that have chimed in have experience in what the OP was looking for? There are better alternatives for what he's looking to do, and I commented on it. smh

 

[traylorc]

The title of this thread is "Opinions on a lens choice"

You just don't get it. Yes, I have seen negative comments about the lens and it's performance in low light conditions, gave the OP an example of such, and then told him about a few other lenses that are better, hence the whole "opinion on a lens choice" from a Photographer with low light experience at Disney, on Disney rides, with examples of his work, and having worked with many different lenses. The problem I see here is that I might have touched a nerve with you because you took offense that I gave negative criticism for the 35mm based on the Communities I'm a part of, and having used better lenses that I've shown examples within. The OP asked for opinions, and he got a very good one from someone experienced with the very photography he's looking at capturing. I do not need a copy of the 35mm, although I'd love to squeeze it in my bag if I got rid of something else, to know how it performs in low light situations, or that a particular issue is prevalent to this specific topic. Had the OP said he needed opinions on good daylight primes with amazing bokeh, and was looking to shoot portraits, the Sigma 35mm would've been on my list of lenses to look into. The overwhelming good comments I've seen for the 35mm pertain to well lit subjects. It's a tack sharp lens on most bodies, and is an excellent lens for THAT PARTICULAR AREA. Thank you.

Based on your response to me, and your responses to other forum members....I think you are the one that doesn't "get it".

You point the OP to an eight month old thread, and then provide information regarding one photographer who had some issues with this lens. You have come to the conclusion this lens has issues in low light even though you have no first hand experience with this lens. Your knowledge of this lens is based on the hearsay of other photographers. That's fine...it's your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

Conversely others are entitled to their opinion. You haven't touched a nerve based on citing some negative features of this lens. My enjoyment of any piece of photography equipment is not based on what you or anyone else thinks. If I like a lens that others universally pan...so be it. I shoot for myself and no one else. I was simply pointing out to the OP there are other folks who actually own this lens who have not reported this issue with low light. Just because other forum members have an opinion that differs from yours does not make those opinions any less valuable.

 

[traylorc]

I'm not trying to push anything except the fact that I gave an opinion based on experience and knowledge, and shouldn't have to keep defending it. Did you seriously need to chime in with your opinion to tell me to drop it? Soon as people [here] stop trying to use their opinions as fact we can all drop it. How many that have chimed in have experience in what the OP was looking for? There are better alternatives for what he's looking to do, and I commented on it. smh

No one is asking you to defend you opinion....but you need to understand that when engaging in a discussion others may have a different opinions.

 

[nbaresejr]

That is called an opinion. If you consider him to be YOUR authority on photography [here], that's great. Just because [he] didn't report what many others did concerning low light focusing issues with the 35mm doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I was giving the OP MY OPINION with my experience, and what I had heard concerning the Sigma 35mm front focusing in low light, which is MORE prevalent than with other lenses. Look at some of my exif data and tell me shooting at high ISO is ridiculous. The 7D can handle it. I owned the 7D and know what it can and can't do.

Also, you should look up Jared Polin, and what he says on "noise". There is absolutely NO reason you can't leave a photo with noise. Reducing it too much in post will kill the clarity. I don't get the whole "too noisy" complaint. Shooting over 6400 is NOT impractical. smh

The majority of your low light images are way way to high in noise IMO. Fro is awesome and I know what he says about grain but your images show noise not grain. The 25k shots are not useable for anything other then web viewing. I edit on my calibrated for print monitor and view at 100%to see if the noise is to high or not. This could be your editing making the noise greater, only you can answer that. If you are happy with your images that's all that matters but since you asked my opinion I responded.

Also Tom bricked is the Disney authority and that is not an opinion. Ask anyone around here and they will tell you the same.

 

[ronfin]

Exactly, and that's all they are, yet yourself, and the guy who used the Appeal to Authority fallacy, both tried to discredit what I was saying on this topic using the "I own it", and "I know a Pro with it" arguments, which are both invalid. I also know a few Professionals with the lens. It doesn't change how it front focuses on same camera bodies poorly in ambient light. I don't need to own a Ferrari to know Ferrari owners and get an idea if how it performs right? I owned the 7D, and many different lenses with it. I know what the OP is looking for, so gave him my opinion based on that knowledge. you guys are t happy with that. There are discussions about how the Sigma 35 was performing in low light, and I told the OP to stay away from it since there are better options. That's all. If he wants to get it and try it for himself I'm all for that. Just wanted him to know what else is available.